Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 421 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 211 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 42 | 50.80 ± 12.82 (25 - 72) | 50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72) | 51.27 ± 13.01 (32 - 72) | 0.814 |
gender | 42 | 0.317 | |||
f | 29 (69%) | 13 (62%) | 16 (76%) | ||
m | 13 (31%) | 8 (38%) | 5 (24%) | ||
occupation | 42 | 0.978 | |||
full_time | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
other | 2 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
part_time | 7 (17%) | 4 (19%) | 3 (14%) | ||
retired | 12 (29%) | 6 (29%) | 6 (29%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (24%) | 5 (24%) | 5 (24%) | ||
marital | 42 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
married | 7 (17%) | 3 (14%) | 4 (19%) | ||
none | 24 (57%) | 12 (57%) | 12 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (7.1%) | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
widow | 3 (7.1%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
edu | 42 | 0.435 | |||
bachelor | 12 (29%) | 5 (24%) | 7 (33%) | ||
diploma | 7 (17%) | 5 (24%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (9.5%) | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
primary | 4 (9.5%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 2 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 10 (24%) | 7 (33%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
fam_income | 42 | 0.794 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (7.1%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
12001_14000 | 1 (2.4%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (9.5%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.4%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 8 (19%) | 6 (29%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (12%) | 2 (9.5%) | 3 (14%) | ||
4001_6000 | 6 (14%) | 3 (14%) | 3 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (7.1%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.5%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (9.5%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
medication | 42 | 36 (86%) | 17 (81%) | 19 (90%) | 0.663 |
onset_duration | 42 | 16.91 ± 12.51 (0 - 56) | 17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56) | 15.91 ± 10.45 (0 - 35) | 0.614 |
onset_age | 42 | 33.89 ± 12.43 (15 - 62) | 32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55) | 35.35 ± 13.47 (15 - 62) | 0.452 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 421 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 211 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 42 | 3.45 ± 1.27 (1 - 5) | 3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5) | 3.52 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 0.721 |
recovery_stage_b | 42 | 18.33 ± 2.67 (9 - 23) | 18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23) | 18.24 ± 2.47 (14 - 23) | 0.821 |
ras_confidence | 42 | 30.86 ± 4.72 (19 - 40) | 30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40) | 31.48 ± 4.92 (22 - 39) | 0.402 |
ras_willingness | 42 | 12.26 ± 2.06 (7 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15) | 12.24 ± 2.32 (7 - 15) | 0.941 |
ras_goal | 42 | 17.67 ± 3.11 (12 - 24) | 17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23) | 17.76 ± 3.21 (12 - 24) | 0.846 |
ras_reliance | 42 | 13.38 ± 3.12 (8 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18) | 13.52 ± 3.47 (8 - 20) | 0.771 |
ras_domination | 42 | 10.21 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15) | 9.48 ± 2.84 (3 - 14) | 0.048 |
symptom | 42 | 29.79 ± 10.29 (14 - 56) | 28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45) | 30.71 ± 11.88 (15 - 56) | 0.565 |
slof_work | 42 | 22.90 ± 5.06 (10 - 30) | 23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30) | 22.38 ± 5.39 (10 - 30) | 0.509 |
slof_relationship | 42 | 26.33 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35) | 25.71 ± 5.96 (11 - 35) | 0.502 |
satisfaction | 42 | 21.19 ± 6.95 (5 - 30) | 19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29) | 22.52 ± 7.10 (5 - 30) | 0.218 |
mhc_emotional | 42 | 11.55 ± 3.58 (4 - 18) | 11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17) | 11.95 ± 4.14 (4 - 18) | 0.471 |
mhc_social | 42 | 15.02 ± 4.82 (6 - 25) | 15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25) | 14.86 ± 5.19 (6 - 23) | 0.826 |
mhc_psychological | 42 | 22.40 ± 6.24 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33) | 23.24 ± 6.34 (6 - 36) | 0.393 |
resilisnce | 42 | 17.05 ± 4.72 (6 - 25) | 16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24) | 17.24 ± 5.08 (7 - 25) | 0.797 |
social_provision | 42 | 13.55 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20) | 13.67 ± 3.54 (5 - 19) | 0.814 |
els_value_living | 42 | 17.14 ± 3.07 (5 - 23) | 16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20) | 17.43 ± 3.80 (5 - 23) | 0.553 |
els_life_fulfill | 42 | 13.02 ± 3.41 (4 - 18) | 12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17) | 13.86 ± 3.32 (4 - 18) | 0.114 |
els | 42 | 30.17 ± 5.84 (9 - 40) | 29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36) | 31.29 ± 6.73 (9 - 40) | 0.218 |
social_connect | 42 | 26.81 ± 10.30 (8 - 48) | 27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45) | 26.57 ± 11.45 (8 - 48) | 0.883 |
shs_agency | 42 | 14.17 ± 4.88 (3 - 20) | 13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20) | 14.62 ± 5.36 (3 - 20) | 0.554 |
shs_pathway | 42 | 16.69 ± 3.77 (4 - 22) | 16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21) | 17.19 ± 4.26 (4 - 22) | 0.397 |
shs | 42 | 30.86 ± 8.00 (7 - 42) | 29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41) | 31.81 ± 8.77 (7 - 42) | 0.447 |
esteem | 42 | 12.55 ± 1.19 (10 - 15) | 12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14) | 12.43 ± 1.33 (10 - 15) | 0.525 |
mlq_search | 42 | 15.21 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21) | 15.24 ± 3.62 (3 - 20) | 0.965 |
mlq_presence | 42 | 13.64 ± 4.08 (3 - 21) | 14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19) | 13.14 ± 4.97 (3 - 21) | 0.434 |
mlq | 42 | 28.86 ± 6.85 (6 - 41) | 29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40) | 28.38 ± 7.63 (6 - 41) | 0.658 |
empower | 42 | 19.95 ± 4.38 (6 - 28) | 20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24) | 19.81 ± 5.09 (6 - 28) | 0.836 |
ismi_resistance | 42 | 14.95 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19) | 14.95 ± 3.38 (5 - 20) | >0.999 |
ismi_discrimation | 42 | 11.21 ± 3.20 (5 - 19) | 12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17) | 10.43 ± 3.26 (5 - 19) | 0.112 |
sss_affective | 42 | 9.64 ± 4.21 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15) | 9.33 ± 4.91 (3 - 18) | 0.639 |
sss_behavior | 42 | 9.64 ± 4.38 (3 - 18) | 10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 9.10 ± 4.56 (3 - 18) | 0.425 |
sss_cognitive | 42 | 7.88 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15) | 8.29 ± 4.37 (3 - 18) | 0.518 |
sss | 42 | 27.17 ± 11.66 (9 - 54) | 27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44) | 26.71 ± 13.42 (9 - 54) | 0.805 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.273 | 2.85, 3.92 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.143 | 0.385 | -0.613, 0.898 | 0.713 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.197 | 0.465 | -0.714, 1.11 | 0.687 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.515 | 0.708 | -0.873, 1.90 | 0.494 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.4 | 0.586 | 17.3, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.190 | 0.829 | -1.82, 1.43 | 0.819 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.583 | 0.605 | -1.77, 0.603 | 0.378 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.924 | -0.339, 3.28 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.024 | 28.2, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.24 | 1.449 | -1.60, 4.08 | 0.398 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.115 | 1.062 | -2.20, 1.97 | 0.918 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.671 | 1.622 | -2.51, 3.85 | 0.696 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.447 | 11.4, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.048 | 0.633 | -1.29, 1.19 | 0.940 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.802 | 0.597 | -1.97, 0.368 | 0.232 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.519 | 0.911 | -1.27, 2.30 | 0.591 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.678 | 16.2, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.190 | 0.958 | -1.69, 2.07 | 0.843 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.256 | 0.649 | -1.53, 1.02 | 0.708 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.399 | 0.991 | -1.54, 2.34 | 0.703 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.688 | 11.9, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.286 | 0.973 | -1.62, 2.19 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.044 | 0.640 | -1.21, 1.30 | 0.948 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.749 | 0.978 | -1.17, 2.67 | 0.474 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.514 | 9.95, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.48 | 0.726 | -2.90, -0.053 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.77 | 1.019 | -3.76, 0.230 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.47 | 1.551 | 0.430, 6.51 | 0.050 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.101 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 2.260 | 24.4, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.86 | 3.197 | -4.41, 8.12 | 0.565 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -2.83 | 1.631 | -6.03, 0.362 | 0.142 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.83 | 2.490 | -1.05, 8.71 | 0.184 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.4 | 1.102 | 21.3, 25.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 1.559 | -4.10, 2.01 | 0.505 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.67 | 0.876 | -3.39, 0.049 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.56 | 1.338 | -1.06, 4.18 | 0.296 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.277 | 24.4, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.24 | 1.806 | -4.78, 2.30 | 0.497 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -3.30 | 1.204 | -5.66, -0.938 | 0.039 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 4.80 | 1.838 | 1.20, 8.41 | 0.045 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 1.506 | 16.9, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.67 | 2.130 | -1.51, 6.84 | 0.218 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.09 | 1.566 | 0.018, 6.16 | 0.105 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.904 | 2.391 | -5.59, 3.78 | 0.721 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.765 | 9.64, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.810 | 1.082 | -1.31, 2.93 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.40 | 1.898 | -2.32, 5.12 | 0.501 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.79 | 2.868 | -3.83, 7.41 | 0.561 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.071 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 1.153 | 12.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.333 | 1.631 | -3.53, 2.86 | 0.839 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.64 | 2.400 | -1.07, 8.34 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -4.74 | 3.650 | -11.9, 2.42 | 0.211 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 1.350 | 18.9, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 1.909 | -2.08, 5.41 | 0.387 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.61 | 3.195 | -3.65, 8.87 | 0.428 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.91 | 4.842 | -12.4, 6.58 | 0.558 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 1.036 | 14.8, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.381 | 1.465 | -2.49, 3.25 | 0.796 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.340 | 0.925 | -1.47, 2.15 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.79 | 1.412 | -5.56, -0.022 | 0.103 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.704 | 12.0, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.238 | 0.996 | -1.71, 2.19 | 0.812 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.171 | 0.609 | -1.36, 1.02 | 0.790 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.911 | 0.929 | -0.910, 2.73 | 0.372 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.674 | 15.5, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.571 | 0.953 | -1.30, 2.44 | 0.552 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.218 | 0.412 | -1.02, 0.589 | 0.619 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.071 | 0.629 | -1.30, 1.16 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.726 | 10.8, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 1.026 | -0.344, 3.68 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.796 | 0.864 | -0.899, 2.49 | 0.399 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.488 | 1.319 | -3.07, 2.10 | 0.726 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.058 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.264 | 26.6, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.24 | 1.787 | -1.26, 5.74 | 0.218 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.460 | 1.076 | -1.65, 2.57 | 0.686 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.553 | 1.642 | -3.77, 2.67 | 0.750 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 2.274 | 22.6, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.476 | 3.216 | -6.78, 5.83 | 0.883 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 4.48 | 1.361 | 1.81, 7.15 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.90 | 2.079 | -2.17, 5.98 | 0.401 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 1.071 | 11.6, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.905 | 1.515 | -2.07, 3.87 | 0.554 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.57 | 0.827 | 0.955, 4.19 | 0.026 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.03 | 1.262 | -4.50, 0.448 | 0.169 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.815 | 14.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 1.152 | -1.26, 3.26 | 0.391 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 0.969 | -0.819, 2.98 | 0.316 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.345 | 1.479 | -3.24, 2.55 | 0.825 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.751 | 26.5, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.90 | 2.476 | -2.95, 6.76 | 0.446 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.55 | 0.885 | 1.81, 5.28 | 0.010 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.72 | 1.352 | -5.37, -0.069 | 0.100 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.258 | 12.2, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.238 | 0.364 | -0.952, 0.476 | 0.517 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.368 | 0.612 | -0.832, 1.57 | 0.566 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.304 | 0.928 | -2.12, 1.51 | 0.751 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.754 | 13.7, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.048 | 1.066 | -2.04, 2.14 | 0.965 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 1.115 | -1.81, 2.56 | 0.747 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.283 | 1.700 | -3.05, 3.61 | 0.874 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.1 | 0.893 | 12.4, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.00 | 1.263 | -3.48, 1.48 | 0.433 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.120 | 0.755 | -1.60, 1.36 | 0.880 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 1.153 | -3.54, 0.984 | 0.319 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.505 | 26.4, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.952 | 2.128 | -5.12, 3.22 | 0.657 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.323 | 1.733 | -3.07, 3.72 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.950 | 2.645 | -6.13, 4.23 | 0.734 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.1 | 0.960 | 18.2, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.286 | 1.358 | -2.95, 2.38 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.389 | 0.741 | -1.84, 1.06 | 0.622 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.503 | 1.131 | -2.72, 1.71 | 0.675 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.592 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.838 | -1.64, 1.64 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.795 | 1.271 | -3.29, 1.70 | 0.561 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.44 | 1.932 | -2.35, 5.23 | 0.491 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.665 | 10.7, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.57 | 0.940 | -3.41, 0.271 | 0.103 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.00 | 1.301 | -3.55, 1.55 | 0.492 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.995 | 1.980 | -2.89, 4.87 | 0.645 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.923 | 8.14, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.619 | 1.306 | -3.18, 1.94 | 0.638 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.032 | 0.821 | -1.64, 1.58 | 0.970 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.690 | 1.254 | -3.15, 1.77 | 0.606 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.954 | 8.32, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.10 | 1.349 | -3.74, 1.55 | 0.422 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.535 | 0.880 | -2.26, 1.19 | 0.570 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.142 | 1.344 | -2.78, 2.49 | 0.920 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.48 | 0.871 | 5.77, 9.18 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.810 | 1.231 | -1.60, 3.22 | 0.515 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.56 | 1.399 | -0.182, 5.30 | 0.129 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -4.05 | 2.133 | -8.23, 0.135 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 2.560 | 22.6, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.905 | 3.621 | -8.00, 6.19 | 0.804 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.71 | 2.523 | -3.23, 6.66 | 0.528 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -4.20 | 3.852 | -11.8, 3.35 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.85, 3.92], t(43) = 12.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.90], t(43) = 0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.11], t(43) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.90])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.90], t(43) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(43) = 31.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.43], t(43) = -0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.60], t(43) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.28], t(43) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.23, 32.25], t(43) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.60, 4.08], t(43) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.20, 1.97], t(43) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-2.51, 3.85], t(43) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.41, 13.16], t(43) = 27.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.19], t(43) = -0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.37], t(43) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.30], t(43) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.24, 18.90], t(43) = 25.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.69, 2.07], t(43) = 0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.02], t(43) = -0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.34], t(43) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.89, 14.59], t(43) = 19.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.62, 2.19], t(43) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.30], t(43) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.67], t(43) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.95, 11.96], t(43) = 21.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-2.90, -0.05], t(43) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.19, -0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.77, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.23], t(43) = -1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.47, 95% CI [0.43, 6.51], t(43) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.18, 2.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.43, 33.29], t(43) = 12.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [-4.41, 8.12], t(43) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.83, 95% CI [-6.03, 0.36], t(43) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.83, 95% CI [-1.05, 8.71], t(43) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.27, 25.59], t(43) = 21.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-4.10, 2.01], t(43) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.67, 95% CI [-3.39, 0.05], t(43) = -1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-1.06, 4.18], t(43) = 1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.87])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.45, 29.46], t(43) = 21.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-4.78, 2.30], t(43) = -0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.30, 95% CI [-5.66, -0.94], t(43) = -2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.80, 95% CI [1.20, 8.41], t(43) = 2.61, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.85, 95% CI [0.21, 1.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.90, 22.81], t(43) = 13.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-1.51, 6.84], t(43) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.98])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [0.02, 6.16], t(43) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [2.63e-03, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-5.59, 3.78], t(43) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.11) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.64, 12.64], t(43) = 14.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.93], t(43) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-2.32, 5.12], t(43) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [-3.83, 7.41], t(43) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.93, 17.45], t(43) = 13.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-3.53, 2.86], t(43) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.64, 95% CI [-1.07, 8.34], t(43) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.74, 95% CI [-11.89, 2.42], t(43) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.93, 24.22], t(43) = 15.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-2.08, 5.41], t(43) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.89])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.61, 95% CI [-3.65, 8.87], t(43) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.91, 95% CI [-12.40, 6.58], t(43) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.89], t(43) = 16.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-2.49, 3.25], t(43) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.15], t(43) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.79, 95% CI [-5.56, -0.02], t(43) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.23, -4.91e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [12.05, 14.81], t(43) = 19.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.19], t(43) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.02], t(43) = -0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.73], t(43) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.54, 18.18], t(43) = 25.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.44], t(43) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.59], t(43) = -0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.16], t(43) = -0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.77, 13.61], t(43) = 16.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.68], t(43) = 1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.49], t(43) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.75])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.07, 2.10], t(43) = -0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.57, 31.52], t(43) = 22.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.24, 95% CI [-1.26, 5.74], t(43) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.57], t(43) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-3.77, 2.67], t(43) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.59, 31.50], t(43) = 11.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-6.78, 5.83], t(43) = -0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.48, 95% CI [1.81, 7.15], t(43) = 3.29, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.18, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-2.17, 5.98], t(43) = 0.91, p = 0.360; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.61, 15.81], t(43) = 12.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-2.07, 3.87], t(43) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.57, 95% CI [0.95, 4.19], t(43) = 3.11, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.20, 0.88])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-4.50, 0.45], t(43) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.59, 17.79], t(43) = 19.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.26, 3.26], t(43) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.98], t(43) = 1.11, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.82])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-3.24, 2.55], t(43) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.47, 33.34], t(43) = 17.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-2.95, 6.76], t(43) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.55, 95% CI [1.81, 5.28], t(43) = 4.01, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.23, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.72, 95% CI [-5.37, -0.07], t(43) = -2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -8.85e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.23) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.16, 13.17], t(43) = 49.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.48], t(43) = -0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.57], t(43) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.12, 1.51], t(43) = -0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.71, 16.67], t(43) = 20.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.14], t(43) = 0.04, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.56], t(43) = 0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.77])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-3.05, 3.61], t(43) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(43) = 15.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.48], t(43) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.36], t(43) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.98], t(43) = -1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.38, 32.28], t(43) = 19.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-5.12, 3.22], t(43) = -0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.72], t(43) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-6.13, 4.23], t(43) = -0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.21, 21.98], t(43) = 20.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.38], t(43) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.06], t(43) = -0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.72, 1.71], t(43) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.79, 16.11], t(43) = 25.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25e-14, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.64], t(43) = -2.69e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.49e-17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-3.29, 1.70], t(43) = -0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-2.35, 5.23], t(43) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(43) = 18.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.41, 0.27], t(43) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-3.55, 1.55], t(43) = -0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-2.89, 4.87], t(43) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.14, 11.76], t(43) = 10.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.94], t(43) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.58], t(43) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -7.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.77], t(43) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(43) = 10.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-3.74, 1.55], t(43) = -0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.19], t(43) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.78, 2.49], t(43) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.77, 9.18], t(43) = 8.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.60, 3.22], t(43) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.56, 95% CI [-0.18, 5.30], t(43) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.05, 95% CI [-8.23, 0.13], t(43) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.60, 32.64], t(43) = 10.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-8.00, 6.19], t(43) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.71, 95% CI [-3.23, 6.66], t(43) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.20, 95% CI [-11.75, 3.35], t(43) = -1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 160.608 | 166.284 | -77.304 | 154.608 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 164.125 | 175.475 | -76.062 | 152.125 | 2.484 | 3 | 0.478 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 229.208 | 234.884 | -111.604 | 223.208 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 232.298 | 243.649 | -110.149 | 220.298 | 2.910 | 3 | 0.406 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 282.030 | 287.705 | -138.015 | 276.030 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 287.028 | 298.379 | -137.514 | 275.028 | 1.001 | 3 | 0.801 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 205.609 | 211.284 | -99.804 | 199.609 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 209.320 | 220.671 | -98.660 | 197.320 | 2.289 | 3 | 0.515 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 239.755 | 245.431 | -116.878 | 233.755 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 245.459 | 256.810 | -116.730 | 233.459 | 0.296 | 3 | 0.961 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 242.023 | 247.699 | -118.012 | 236.023 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 246.507 | 257.858 | -117.254 | 234.507 | 1.516 | 3 | 0.679 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 229.758 | 235.434 | -111.879 | 223.758 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 228.264 | 239.615 | -108.132 | 216.264 | 7.494 | 3 | 0.058 |
symptom | null | 3 | 357.676 | 363.352 | -175.838 | 351.676 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 359.550 | 370.901 | -173.775 | 347.550 | 4.127 | 3 | 0.248 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 288.587 | 294.262 | -141.294 | 282.587 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 290.526 | 301.877 | -139.263 | 278.526 | 4.061 | 3 | 0.255 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 308.255 | 313.931 | -151.128 | 302.255 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 307.311 | 318.662 | -147.655 | 295.311 | 6.945 | 3 | 0.074 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 325.832 | 331.507 | -159.916 | 319.832 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 324.859 | 336.210 | -156.430 | 312.859 | 6.973 | 3 | 0.073 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 265.944 | 271.619 | -129.972 | 259.944 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 269.668 | 281.019 | -128.834 | 257.668 | 2.275 | 3 | 0.517 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 305.107 | 310.782 | -149.553 | 299.107 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 308.180 | 319.531 | -148.090 | 296.180 | 2.927 | 3 | 0.403 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 320.385 | 326.060 | -157.192 | 314.385 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 325.090 | 336.441 | -156.545 | 313.090 | 1.294 | 3 | 0.731 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 284.879 | 290.555 | -139.440 | 278.879 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 286.080 | 297.431 | -137.040 | 274.080 | 4.799 | 3 | 0.187 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 243.371 | 249.047 | -118.686 | 237.371 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 247.793 | 259.144 | -117.896 | 235.793 | 1.578 | 3 | 0.664 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 233.863 | 239.539 | -113.932 | 227.863 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 238.600 | 249.951 | -113.300 | 226.600 | 1.263 | 3 | 0.738 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 252.667 | 258.343 | -123.334 | 246.667 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 255.144 | 266.495 | -121.572 | 243.144 | 3.524 | 3 | 0.318 |
els | null | 3 | 300.623 | 306.299 | -147.312 | 294.623 | |||
els | random | 6 | 304.854 | 316.205 | -146.427 | 292.854 | 1.769 | 3 | 0.622 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 362.496 | 368.171 | -178.248 | 356.496 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 357.525 | 368.876 | -172.762 | 345.525 | 10.971 | 3 | 0.012 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 289.749 | 295.425 | -141.875 | 283.749 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 287.317 | 298.668 | -137.658 | 275.317 | 8.432 | 3 | 0.038 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 263.150 | 268.826 | -128.575 | 257.150 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 266.476 | 277.827 | -127.238 | 254.476 | 2.674 | 3 | 0.445 |
shs | null | 3 | 334.786 | 340.462 | -164.393 | 328.786 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 329.540 | 340.891 | -158.770 | 317.540 | 11.247 | 3 | 0.010 |
esteem | null | 3 | 157.930 | 163.605 | -75.965 | 151.930 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 162.722 | 174.073 | -75.361 | 150.722 | 1.208 | 3 | 0.751 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 256.305 | 261.981 | -125.153 | 250.305 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 261.893 | 273.244 | -124.946 | 249.893 | 0.412 | 3 | 0.938 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 268.286 | 273.961 | -131.143 | 262.286 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 270.777 | 282.128 | -129.388 | 258.777 | 3.509 | 3 | 0.320 |
mlq | null | 3 | 320.671 | 326.346 | -157.335 | 314.671 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 326.183 | 337.534 | -157.091 | 314.183 | 0.488 | 3 | 0.922 |
empower | null | 3 | 272.326 | 278.001 | -133.163 | 266.326 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 276.579 | 287.930 | -132.290 | 264.579 | 1.746 | 3 | 0.627 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 237.914 | 243.590 | -115.957 | 231.914 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 243.119 | 254.470 | -115.560 | 231.119 | 0.795 | 3 | 0.851 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 250.538 | 256.213 | -122.269 | 244.538 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 253.211 | 264.561 | -120.605 | 241.211 | 3.327 | 3 | 0.344 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 269.590 | 275.266 | -131.795 | 263.590 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 274.711 | 286.062 | -131.356 | 262.711 | 0.879 | 3 | 0.830 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 274.157 | 279.832 | -134.078 | 268.157 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 278.447 | 289.798 | -133.224 | 266.447 | 1.709 | 3 | 0.635 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 275.782 | 281.457 | -134.891 | 269.782 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 277.083 | 288.434 | -132.542 | 265.083 | 4.699 | 3 | 0.195 |
sss | null | 3 | 371.490 | 377.166 | -182.745 | 365.490 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 376.083 | 387.434 | -182.041 | 364.083 | 1.407 | 3 | 0.704 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 21 | 3.38 ± 1.25 | 21 | 3.52 ± 1.25 | 0.713 | -0.203 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 4 | 3.58 ± 1.04 | -0.279 | 3 | 4.24 ± 1.02 | -1.011 | 0.418 | -0.934 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 21 | 18.43 ± 2.69 | 21 | 18.24 ± 2.69 | 0.819 | 0.218 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 4 | 17.85 ± 1.61 | 0.667 | 3 | 19.13 ± 1.53 | -1.016 | 0.297 | -1.465 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 21 | 30.24 ± 4.69 | 21 | 31.48 ± 4.69 | 0.398 | -0.806 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 4 | 30.12 ± 2.83 | 0.075 | 3 | 32.03 ± 2.68 | -0.362 | 0.374 | -1.243 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 21 | 12.29 ± 2.05 | 21 | 12.24 ± 2.05 | 0.940 | 0.054 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 4 | 11.48 ± 1.43 | 0.915 | 3 | 11.96 ± 1.38 | 0.322 | 0.665 | -0.538 |
ras_goal | 1st | 21 | 17.57 ± 3.11 | 21 | 17.76 ± 3.11 | 0.843 | -0.204 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 4 | 17.31 ± 1.80 | 0.274 | 3 | 17.90 ± 1.69 | -0.152 | 0.662 | -0.630 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 21 | 13.24 ± 3.15 | 21 | 13.52 ± 3.15 | 0.770 | -0.310 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 4 | 13.28 ± 1.81 | -0.048 | 3 | 14.32 ± 1.69 | -0.860 | 0.445 | -1.123 |
ras_domination | 1st | 21 | 10.95 ± 2.35 | 21 | 9.48 ± 2.35 | 0.048 | 0.924 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 4 | 9.19 ± 2.23 | 1.106 | 3 | 11.18 ± 2.22 | -1.065 | 0.259 | -1.247 |
symptom | 1st | 21 | 28.86 ± 10.36 | 21 | 30.71 ± 10.36 | 0.565 | -0.797 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 4 | 26.02 ± 5.40 | 1.216 | 3 | 31.71 ± 4.96 | -0.426 | 0.159 | -2.439 |
slof_work | 1st | 21 | 23.43 ± 5.05 | 21 | 22.38 ± 5.05 | 0.505 | 0.835 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 4 | 21.76 ± 2.72 | 1.329 | 3 | 22.27 ± 2.52 | 0.088 | 0.799 | -0.407 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 21 | 26.95 ± 5.85 | 21 | 25.71 ± 5.85 | 0.497 | 0.714 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 4 | 23.65 ± 3.37 | 1.902 | 3 | 27.22 ± 3.17 | -0.868 | 0.166 | -2.056 |
satisfaction | 1st | 21 | 19.86 ± 6.90 | 21 | 22.52 ± 6.90 | 0.218 | -1.177 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 4 | 22.95 ± 4.16 | -1.363 | 3 | 24.71 ± 3.94 | -0.964 | 0.575 | -0.778 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 21 | 11.14 ± 3.51 | 21 | 11.95 ± 3.51 | 0.458 | -0.236 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 4 | 12.54 ± 4.03 | -0.408 | 3 | 15.14 ± 4.06 | -0.929 | 0.405 | -0.758 |
mhc_social | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 5.28 | 21 | 14.86 ± 5.28 | 0.839 | 0.087 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 4 | 18.83 ± 5.23 | -0.952 | 3 | 13.76 ± 5.23 | 0.288 | 0.221 | 1.326 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 21 | 21.57 ± 6.19 | 21 | 23.24 ± 6.19 | 0.387 | -0.305 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 4 | 24.18 ± 6.90 | -0.478 | 3 | 22.94 ± 6.94 | 0.054 | 0.816 | 0.227 |
resilisnce | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 4.75 | 21 | 17.24 ± 4.75 | 0.796 | -0.287 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 4 | 17.20 ± 2.67 | -0.255 | 3 | 14.79 ± 2.50 | 1.843 | 0.233 | 1.812 |
social_provision | 1st | 21 | 13.43 ± 3.23 | 21 | 13.67 ± 3.23 | 0.812 | -0.272 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 4 | 13.26 ± 1.79 | 0.196 | 3 | 14.41 ± 1.67 | -0.847 | 0.392 | -1.315 |
els_value_living | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 3.09 | 21 | 17.43 ± 3.09 | 0.552 | -0.975 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 4 | 16.64 ± 1.54 | 0.371 | 3 | 17.14 ± 1.40 | 0.492 | 0.656 | -0.854 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 21 | 12.19 ± 3.32 | 21 | 13.86 ± 3.32 | 0.112 | -1.323 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 4 | 12.99 ± 2.16 | -0.632 | 3 | 14.16 ± 2.07 | -0.244 | 0.474 | -0.936 |
els | 1st | 21 | 29.05 ± 5.79 | 21 | 31.29 ± 5.79 | 0.218 | -1.450 | ||
els | 2nd | 4 | 29.51 ± 3.20 | -0.298 | 3 | 31.19 ± 2.98 | 0.060 | 0.480 | -1.092 |
social_connect | 1st | 21 | 27.05 ± 10.42 | 21 | 26.57 ± 10.42 | 0.883 | 0.246 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 4 | 31.53 ± 5.17 | -2.311 | 3 | 32.95 ± 4.68 | -3.292 | 0.705 | -0.735 |
shs_agency | 1st | 21 | 13.71 ± 4.91 | 21 | 14.62 ± 4.91 | 0.554 | -0.765 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 4 | 16.29 ± 2.62 | -2.177 | 3 | 15.17 ± 2.42 | -0.464 | 0.563 | 0.948 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 21 | 16.19 ± 3.73 | 21 | 17.19 ± 3.73 | 0.391 | -0.708 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 4 | 17.27 ± 2.42 | -0.765 | 3 | 17.93 ± 2.32 | -0.521 | 0.721 | -0.464 |
shs | 1st | 21 | 29.90 ± 8.02 | 21 | 31.81 ± 8.02 | 0.446 | -1.514 | ||
shs | 2nd | 4 | 33.45 ± 3.85 | -2.819 | 3 | 32.64 ± 3.45 | -0.658 | 0.770 | 0.647 |
esteem | 1st | 21 | 12.67 ± 1.18 | 21 | 12.43 ± 1.18 | 0.517 | 0.227 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 4 | 13.03 ± 1.32 | -0.350 | 3 | 12.49 ± 1.33 | -0.061 | 0.596 | 0.517 |
mlq_search | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 3.46 | 21 | 15.24 ± 3.46 | 0.965 | -0.029 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 4 | 15.57 ± 2.58 | -0.229 | 3 | 15.90 ± 2.52 | -0.399 | 0.867 | -0.200 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 21 | 14.14 ± 4.09 | 21 | 13.14 ± 4.09 | 0.433 | 0.923 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 4 | 14.02 ± 2.26 | 0.111 | 3 | 11.75 ± 2.10 | 1.289 | 0.181 | 2.101 |
mlq | 1st | 21 | 29.33 ± 6.90 | 21 | 28.38 ± 6.90 | 0.657 | 0.378 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 4 | 29.66 ± 4.39 | -0.128 | 3 | 27.75 ± 4.19 | 0.249 | 0.568 | 0.755 |
empower | 1st | 21 | 20.10 ± 4.40 | 21 | 19.81 ± 4.40 | 0.834 | 0.269 | ||
empower | 2nd | 4 | 19.71 ± 2.35 | 0.367 | 3 | 18.92 ± 2.17 | 0.841 | 0.649 | 0.744 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 21 | 14.95 ± 2.71 | 21 | 14.95 ± 2.71 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 4 | 14.16 ± 2.77 | 0.388 | 3 | 15.60 ± 2.77 | -0.314 | 0.504 | -0.702 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 21 | 12.00 ± 3.05 | 21 | 10.43 ± 3.05 | 0.102 | 0.774 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 4 | 11.00 ± 2.85 | 0.492 | 3 | 10.42 ± 2.84 | 0.003 | 0.794 | 0.284 |
sss_affective | 1st | 21 | 9.95 ± 4.23 | 21 | 9.33 ± 4.23 | 0.638 | 0.524 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 4 | 9.92 ± 2.38 | 0.027 | 3 | 8.61 ± 2.22 | 0.612 | 0.462 | 1.109 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 21 | 10.19 ± 4.37 | 21 | 9.10 ± 4.37 | 0.422 | 0.865 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 4 | 9.66 ± 2.50 | 0.423 | 3 | 8.42 ± 2.34 | 0.534 | 0.508 | 0.977 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 21 | 7.48 ± 3.99 | 21 | 8.29 ± 3.99 | 0.514 | -0.385 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 4 | 10.04 ± 3.17 | -1.219 | 3 | 6.80 ± 3.11 | 0.707 | 0.199 | 1.541 |
sss | 1st | 21 | 27.62 ± 11.73 | 21 | 26.71 ± 11.73 | 0.804 | 0.249 | ||
sss | 2nd | 4 | 29.33 ± 6.90 | -0.470 | 3 | 24.22 ± 6.50 | 0.685 | 0.328 | 1.403 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(41.83) = 0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.92)
2st
t(13.33) = 0.84, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.35)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(40.56) = -0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.48)
2st
t(18.81) = 1.07, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -1.46, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.79)
ras_confidence
1st
t(40.56) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.69 to 4.16)
2st
t(18.70) = 0.91, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.30)
ras_willingness
1st
t(41.00) = -0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.23)
2st
t(14.37) = 0.44, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.76)
ras_goal
1st
t(40.47) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.13)
2st
t(20.76) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.18 to 3.36)
ras_reliance
1st
t(40.45) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.25)
2st
t(21.56) = 0.78, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.80)
ras_domination
1st
t(42.75) = -2.03, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-2.94 to -0.01)
2st
t(15.34) = 1.17, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (-1.62 to 5.61)
symptom
1st
t(40.26) = 0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-4.60 to 8.32)
2st
t(30.37) = 1.44, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -2.44, 95% CI (-2.35 to 13.72)
slof_work
1st
t(40.32) = -0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-4.20 to 2.10)
2st
t(26.78) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-3.58 to 4.60)
slof_relationship
1st
t(40.46) = -0.69, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-4.89 to 2.41)
2st
t(21.20) = 1.43, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -2.06, 95% CI (-1.60 to 8.73)
satisfaction
1st
t(40.57) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -1.18, 95% CI (-1.64 to 6.97)
2st
t(18.64) = 0.57, p = 0.575, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-4.70 to 8.23)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(44.98) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.99)
2st
t(44.16) = 0.84, p = 0.405, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-3.63 to 8.82)
mhc_social
1st
t(43.15) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.62 to 2.95)
2st
t(17.04) = -1.27, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 1.33, 95% CI (-13.50 to 3.36)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(44.53) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.18 to 5.51)
2st
t(31.27) = -0.23, p = 0.816, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-12.01 to 9.54)
resilisnce
1st
t(40.41) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.58 to 3.34)
2st
t(22.85) = -1.23, p = 0.233, Cohen d = 1.81, 95% CI (-6.48 to 1.66)
social_provision
1st
t(40.38) = 0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.25)
2st
t(23.89) = 0.87, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.87)
els_value_living
1st
t(40.18) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.50)
2st
t(36.47) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.76)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(40.77) = 1.62, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (-0.41 to 3.74)
2st
t(15.92) = 0.73, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-2.23 to 4.59)
els
1st
t(40.37) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to 5.85)
2st
t(24.39) = 0.72, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-3.16 to 6.53)
social_connect
1st
t(40.18) = -0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-6.97 to 6.02)
2st
t(37.15) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-6.16 to 9.01)
shs_agency
1st
t(40.30) = 0.60, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-2.16 to 3.97)
2st
t(27.87) = -0.59, p = 0.563, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-5.04 to 2.80)
shs_pathway
1st
t(40.77) = 0.87, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-1.33 to 3.33)
2st
t(15.95) = 0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-3.17 to 4.48)
shs
1st
t(40.12) = 0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -1.51, 95% CI (-3.10 to 6.91)
2st
t(41.80) = -0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-6.40 to 4.78)
esteem
1st
t(44.58) = -0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.50)
2st
t(32.33) = -0.54, p = 0.596, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.52)
mlq_search
1st
t(41.27) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.11 to 2.20)
2st
t(13.52) = 0.17, p = 0.867, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.85 to 4.51)
mlq_presence
1st
t(40.36) = -0.79, p = 0.433, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.55 to 1.55)
2st
t(24.62) = -1.38, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 2.10, 95% CI (-5.69 to 1.13)
mlq
1st
t(40.71) = -0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.25 to 3.35)
2st
t(16.51) = -0.58, p = 0.568, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-8.81 to 5.01)
empower
1st
t(40.30) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.03 to 2.46)
2st
t(27.86) = -0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.30 to 2.72)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(43.44) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.69)
2st
t(18.68) = 0.68, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.99 to 5.87)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(42.64) = -1.67, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-3.47 to 0.33)
2st
t(14.98) = -0.27, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-5.21 to 4.05)
sss_affective
1st
t(40.40) = -0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.26 to 2.02)
2st
t(22.95) = -0.75, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.93 to 2.31)
sss_behavior
1st
t(40.44) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.82 to 1.63)
2st
t(21.84) = -0.67, p = 0.508, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-5.05 to 2.58)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(41.57) = 0.66, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.29)
2st
t(13.24) = -1.35, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 1.54, 95% CI (-8.40 to 1.92)
sss
1st
t(40.50) = -0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-8.22 to 6.41)
2st
t(19.98) = -1.00, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-15.74 to 5.52)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(7.16) = 1.25, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.05)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(5.52) = 1.25, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.67)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(5.53) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.57 to 3.68)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(6.00) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.03 to 1.46)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(5.44) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.05)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(5.41) = 1.06, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.68)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(9.05) = 1.34, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.18 to 4.58)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(5.23) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.81)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(5.29) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.48)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(5.42) = 1.07, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.05)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(5.53) = 1.18, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-2.42 to 6.79)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(31.38) = 1.30, p = 0.408, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.82 to 8.19)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(10.22) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-7.83 to 5.63)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(19.05) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-8.94 to 8.35)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(5.37) = -2.26, p = 0.139, Cohen d = 1.84, 95% CI (-5.18 to 0.28)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = 1.04, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.54)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(5.16) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.93)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(5.74) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.23 to 2.84)
els
1st vs 2st
t(5.33) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.27 to 3.08)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(5.15) = 4.04, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -3.29, 95% CI (2.35 to 10.41)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(5.27) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.99)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(5.74) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.58)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(5.11) = 0.81, p = 0.913, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.45)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(19.76) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.72)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(6.35) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-2.58 to 3.90)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(5.33) = -1.58, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-3.63 to 0.83)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(5.68) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-5.71 to 4.46)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(5.27) = -1.03, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.08 to 1.30)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(11.27) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.19)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(8.78) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.69 to 3.68)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(5.37) = -0.75, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.15 to 1.70)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(5.40) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-3.27 to 1.92)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(6.76) = -0.87, p = 0.824, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.53 to 2.56)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(5.47) = -0.84, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-9.92 to 4.94)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(7.00) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.36)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(5.49) = -0.94, p = 0.769, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.96)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(5.50) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.83 to 2.60)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(5.94) = -1.30, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.71)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(5.41) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.40)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(5.38) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.68)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(8.70) = -1.60, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.28 to 0.75)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(5.22) = -1.72, p = 0.286, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-7.01 to 1.34)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(5.27) = -1.88, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 1.33, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.58)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(5.40) = -2.70, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 1.90, 95% CI (-6.38 to -0.22)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(5.50) = 1.93, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -1.36, 95% CI (-0.91 to 7.09)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(27.50) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-3.00 to 5.79)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(9.73) = 1.38, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-2.24 to 9.52)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(17.22) = 0.73, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-4.96 to 10.18)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.70)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(5.32) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.39)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(5.15) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.84)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(5.70) = 0.90, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.00)
els
1st vs 2st
t(5.31) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.29 to 3.21)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(5.15) = 3.27, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -2.31, 95% CI (0.99 to 7.97)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(5.25) = 3.08, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -2.18, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.69)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(5.69) = 1.09, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.39 to 3.55)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(5.10) = 3.99, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -2.82, 95% CI (1.27 to 5.82)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(17.80) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.82)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(6.26) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.44 to 3.20)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(5.31) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.81)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(5.64) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-4.09 to 4.74)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(5.25) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(10.65) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-3.89 to 2.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(8.46) = -0.71, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-4.22 to 2.22)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.13 to 2.07)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(5.38) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.79 to 1.72)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(6.63) = 1.74, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (-0.96 to 6.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(5.44) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-4.73 to 8.16)
Plot
